Talk:Kʼómoks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

changes[edit]

hi. i moved some information about the city of Comox to Comox, British Columbia as this article should be about the Comox people (who still exist in the present & still speak the Comox language). dont worry, i will be writing something soon (about their language). peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 05:28, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

disambig?[edit]

What should I do about the various Comox electoral districts? fed/prov older ridings simply named Comox, there's Comox-Alberni, Comox-Atlin and Comox-something else too. Normally I would venture to rewrit this as a disambig page, with the first nations language just a link; should I maybe instead (rather than relink everything sent here) the line about Comox, BC (town) and make that a link to a new disambig page. Or could maybe what's on this page be put on a Komox page (with an accent on one of those o's I believe?)

Please see my revisions to Lillooet, which had originally directed only to the St'at'imc people/language and get back to me. I'll move on to other ridings in the meantime.Skookum1 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the disambig information needed once that is decided

Comox language = will be a redirect to Komox however spelled


Comox is also part of the name of various British Columbian provincial and Canadian federal electoral districts:

Skookum1 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMEMBER[edit]

This page is on the Komox Tribe, not the town of Comox. Although much of the history of the tribe interwinds with Comox, the Komox nation had a very different lifestyle. Please edit in ONLY what is relevant to the tribe. Oh, and could someone PLEASE change the article name to "Komox People"? Mayalou6999 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not the Comox, British Columbia town article, or the Comox Valley article; the current name was made because there are no sources for the "authentic indigenous spelling" I've seen K'omoks with accent-marks too, so once we take the step away from the most common usage IN ENGLISH (not in the Komox language, please note), then decisions have to be made about which spelling system for Komox words. Can you point to an online source/website somewhere that uses the "Komox people" constructino; HB myself I prefer to see a native-style spelling on the ethnographic articles vs Comox First Nation which would be the band government article, if there is a Comox First Nation band government that is (there is, right?), and note that on the one hand there's Skwxwu7mesh and Secwepemc and Nlaka'pamux there's Squamish language, Shuswap language and Thompson language; part of the reason for that is what's in most common use among linguists/language studies. I gather you may be Komox yourself - is the "Komox" spelling somewhat standard across the Homalco, Sliammon and Klahoose, i.e. do all three gropus use it? Because "Comox people" is not just for the Comox on the Island; although there may well be a case for separate Sliammon people (or Tl'a'min?) and Klahoose people (?) articles....just please remember the existing article(s) were not intentionally written to slight indigenous peoples' sensitivities; and also please remember that ideally only citable information can be dealt with, although there's a fair bit of slack re WP:AUTO and WP:COI on First Nations/Native American articles because some of the only sources are of course those the article is about (see those links and you'll understand what I mean by that). Iv'e been wanting to see an expansion of this article for some time but have been unequipped to do it, i.e. I don't know the material and don't have the resources. Your input is more than welcome.....what gave you the idea there was any confusion between this and the town article? The spelling? I.e. the use of the C instead of the K? Wikipedia tries to be sensitive to native culture and language; but overall in WP:NAME the overarching consideration is "most common usage", although "authenticity" ALSO is an issue. I hsould also point out that if the article is to bertitled with the native spelling, matching Skwxwu7mesh and Sto:lo, the "people" part isn't included; it's included when an English form of a name is used for hte article, as in the case of Okanagan people where the core indigenous name is Siylx. Not meaning to whack you over the head with all this, I'm known for my long posts; all written in trying to be as thorough as possible, no lecutring intended, just explaining how wikipedia works. If you want to see a good article for your people, stick around and help create it; being open to other points of view is a big part of it see WP:AGF. Also there's a standard format to opening paragraphs giving all possible variations in name and spelling; a "formula" that's in WP:MOS and other places in the wiki-guidebook.Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add quite an impressive BC Archives photo showing the old graveyard posts and gate at the Comox Reserve, but was wary of adding something funereal; I'll come back later with the link to the image which if you feel is suitable it can be added to the article; it gives a good idea of the Comox art-style (I think). And if you want ot see some well-made ethno articles, see Kwakwaka'wakw and Skwxwu7mesh and maybe Duwamish (tribe) or Twana....i.e. as models for article structure/content....Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW articles exist for Klahoose First Nation and Sliammon First Nation already exist; if the use of "Mainland Comox" is a "mistake' for them, maybe made the same way Kwagyul has become mistakenly standard for the Kwakwaka'wakw please say so; ethnographically i.e. in academic literature, they're Mainland Comox; I'm not saying this is right, just partly explaining why I had to rewrite this article's intro a bit....NB Komox people can be parallel to Sliammon people and Klahoose people, which would be subarticles of this article; their "First Nation" titled article should ultimately be about th band government/administration and legal history etc; distinct from ethnographic cultureal material on the "people" pages. I hope you see what I mean, it's to help organize materials and avoid ambiguities; the Comox language has yet to be written; if you can provide mateirals please do so....and I'm well aware I'm blundering in the dark here; not trying to override, trying to explain article style/structure/separations........Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comox language split[edit]

Comox (language) and Comox language both redirect here, and shouldn't; there should be a separate langauge page. here is one resource and here's another more minor one and this is just a google search for "Comox language".Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comox vs. Komox[edit]

As "Comox/Komox" is not the indigenous name for this people, or their language, I see no reason to depart from the most common English form, which is Comox. "K'omoks" and "Komox" "K'omoks", with or without accent marks, is a Kwak'wala word - /q'ómoxws/ - so rendering the name in that language would be like titling the Nooksack (tribe) article with the Halkomelem name for the Nooksack, instead of their own. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Kwak'wala one....Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles moves[edit]

The recent moves of this article need to cease. If a move is desired it should be done thought WP:RM as it would not be uncontroversial. I take this to mean it should be located at K’omoks until a requested move chooses otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm the one who moved it from the geographical complications of "Comox", this usage may only be for the Island Comox and not including the Tla'Amin (Sliammon) or other mainland groups. These people are also listed at Salishan languages as being Salishan-language-speakers but the Island group now speaks Li'kwala ("Southern Kwakiutl"); the name itself is from that language, but in the 20th Century survivors of the epidemics grew close to the Laich-kwil-tach groups at Campbell River, a few miles farther north, and adopted their language; whether the Island Comox language is even still around seems unlikely; but that particular group of Comox-speakers have now restyled their name and are addressed and written about that way by governments...and scholars/academics.... since such names became current in BC English. Note that I didn't move it to the diacriticalized form, but only to a "stripped' romanization as also with St'at'imc and Sto:lo.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And note this closure and my comments below it, and the PRIMARYTOPIC disputes by In ict oculi and Vegaswikian, who both claimed (without really knowing much at all about the place or the people) that the primarytopic is unclear; not in BC it's not, as Skeezix, another Canadian, supported the town as the primary usage. And because the native names now commonly in use are all a result of trying to avoid confusion with the towns/regions named for them (directly or indirectly, the latter in the case of the Chilcotin Country which takes its name from the river, which was named for the people), that's why I moved this, also in no small part because the people themselves do not use it. Searches of BC and Cdn government sites I know will demonstrate the adoption of K'omoks into modern English.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article[edit]

I've moved it back to the 19:56, 15 May 2013‎ Kmoksy version before the move war began. I don't want to have to move protect this article since it's only Skookum1 and Kwamikagami in disagreement. Please, involve the community in deciding and only move it when consensus has been achieved here. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identification is clearly the norm with Canadian indigenous articles and is also in WP:ETHNICGROUP. There was nothing wrong with my move to K'omoks, but what Kwami did in response was very wrong. Canadian/BC naming standards are clear on the use of using endonyms for ethnographic articles in lieu of "Anglicism+people"; it's not fully codified but readily visible in the contents of Category:First Nations in British Columbia and other related categories. As you can se in sections above, in the past I was opposed to such nouveau spellings, but they are a fact of life in Canada now, if not on the academic bookshelves in other countries. And this is really four peoples, not one, and if it remains at the anglicization it should become Comox peoples....but given your warning here I can't do that....but you can.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless to take the ongoing grudge match between me and Kwami to the community; these are naming conventions issues that he and his NCLANG colleagues hold in disdain and never acknowledge, only repeating their own self-authored guideline and even dissing WP:ETHNICGROUP as invalid because it hasn't passed an RfC, even though it nearly verbatim was lifted directly from WP:NCP. Curiously this was done during last year's RMs; I never knew about it or would have liked to input it; instead I was dealing with ongoing insults and baiting from Kwami; who lost those RMs; which form a precedent and reinforce the long-standing convention on the use of endonyms preferred by the people to avoid confusion with white adaptations of these names, which is also why the native peoples of BC have come up with "indigenous" spellings of those terms. Kwami persistently refuses to acknowledge all of this, and claims that I am "disruptive" for filing RMS on "thousands" of articles, when it was him who moved them, often only to redirects back to the stand-alone title; worldwide as it turns out. Where was the community consulted about that?? His glib response below, citing a four-year old post of mine in the days when I myself was resistant to the native names, is typical of what can only be described as weaseling.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Skookm1's statement above, that it should remain at "Comox". — kwami (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's from 2009 and my opinion on all this has changed substantially, especially since the RMs of last year where you tried to impose obsolete and archaic names on articles that have now been reverted by the community to their proper modern nomenclature. I could throw some of your own old posts back at you, too..... this is just more glib snideness from you, as with "the categories don't matter" (evidence of that is with what happened to the former Skxwu7mesh category, now unwisely and confusingly at Category:Squamish people - and "nobody fixes the lede after moving a title" and other snarky comebacks as you are fond of. As per my comment above, these is not one people but four and should be, if it remains at "Comox", "peoples". And as noted K'omoks may only be for the Island Comox and is a Li'kwala name (your Salishan language page should comment on that, btw, that the K'omoks (as they style themselves, whether you insist their preferences don't matter) have adopted Li'kwala as their community language. What a collective term for all four is in their language is I don't know; what I do know is that the IPA-type name given in the lede here is for the Tla'Amin/Sliammon, I'm not sure that the Homalco and Klahoose would use it to refer to themselves. But of course you only care what's in your academic linguists' texts huh? And not what modern reality in Canada is concerning such names.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I must be missing something obvious, as usual :), I see he wanted otherwise here and I see "... sites I know will demonstrate the adoption of K'omoks into modern English..." above. So, who wants Komox or K’omoks? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do..... note here from the file history of the K'omoks redirect:

Note these:

−

  • (Move log); 13:10 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Comox people (temp) to Talk:Comox people/temp ‎

−

  • (Move log); 13:10 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Comox people (temp) to Comox people/temp ‎

−

  • (Move log); 13:10 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:K'omoks to Talk:Comox people (temp) ‎(rv. per WP guidelines)

−

  • (Move log); 13:09 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page K'omoks to Comox people (temp) ‎(rv. per WP guidelines)

−

I removed the db template he put on K'omoks, with "remove db notice; this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" as the reason. He may have not been an admin but now is violating procedure any way he can. This is what this about; I got around him by using the apostrophe in Nisga'a which was not on the original there to restore the native-preferred title (and which seems to have been used to get around another redirect-block.Skookum1 (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See [K'omoks First Nation; even though their URL is grandfathered from when they were the Comox Indian Band, that term is no longer in use and not just by them. What complicates any search for "Comox people" is that the two terms come up with many references to the town or the air force base that have "people" in the text. NCLANG has only last night been reformed to include text from WP:ETHNICGROUP; self-identification is regularly dissed by Kwami as "we don't care what the people preferred to be called" as if he's speaking for all of Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, when you moved this back to where Kwami wants it to be, you cited "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: make way for move" in deleting Comox people to prepare to move the special-apostrophe K'omoks title back to it. Since when is such a move 'non-controversial" and "routine"? Clearly this whole matter is controversial, and the controversy is across a very large group of articles similarly moved by him.Skookum1 (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the anti-native peoples subtext that underlies opposition to using their names for themselves is not something Wikipedia should be known for; as it is we've already lost indigenous editors because of this kind of thing.Skookum1 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skookum1. I deleted Comox people and it's tiny history of a few edits to make way for the move. I don't think that was controversial. The move itself back to Comox people brought the long history over with it. Nothing substantial was lost. Anyway, every time it gets moved from one name to another, it's controversial. That's why I moved it back to the name used before all this controversy began. I think that was the right thing to do.
Okay, so I'm clear Skookum1 wants K'omoks and Kwamikagami wants Comox. Is there anyone else reading all of this that cares one way or another?
With due respect, all that content above is too long and confusing. I'm not here to decide what name it should be. I'm involved to stop warring and help you work things out without going around rules, or finding clever ways to have it your way, or tit-for-tat stuff.
I like to keep things simple, so here's my suggestion: Keep it at Comox people because that was how it was before this started. Discuss it here (or at WP:RM if you want). Try to involve the community. Don't move it before it's really settled. And more than anything, keep it concise or the community will TLDR it. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is confusing, because native issues are confusing to the uninitiated, and I've heard that TLDR line before and being naturally voluble find it grating and see it too often used to ignore important points; that's not a guideline, just an excuse to me; I'm trying to point-form and ramble less, but because of the complications of the issues here it's not possible to write anything shorter; unless I engage in glib comebacks like Kwami typically does; I shoot from the mouth too, but from a larger calibre with much larger and many more bullets. I've tried to involve the community; I can't remember if this was on the bulk RM that got closed without consensus, but Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and its sister RMs re on the Yaquina, Yupik and Cayuga were an attempt to engage the community,but got shot down for being too many at once; now Kwami criticizes me for not having a centralized discussion....and complains that I'm 'disruptive' for posting "thousands" of RMs - on articles that he himself turned into little more than redirects back to themselves or even TWODABS dab pages, even when not imposing old-era names that in many cases are now held in disrespute in Canada. I've tried to engage, rather than ignore, the community; and been criticized for even trying and told I'm incompetent, when the person telling me that isn't competent in the topic area himself (indigenous cultures, Canadian English/geography). I feel like Sisyphus, except I'm not the one rolling the rocks back down off hte mountain.Skookum1 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to offend with my TLDR remark. But I meant what I said. From my exprience, the community tends to stay out of things that are too long. As for me, I'm the wrong person to stating the case to. I'm here to help this get resolved without a war. I came here via WP:RFPP, and not because I care about which name is used.
quite frankly, about that, the community needs some remedial reading courses so that they are capable of reading information that's more than three sentences long....I speed-read, speed-type etc and am from a time when people communicated in paragraphs, not soundbites.Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the matter at hand. My view remains that it should stay how it is unless there is consensus to change it. You may well be right, and it's up to you to convince the community. Simple as that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the closer's comments at Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move which is a precedent and which endorses moves such as the one here; though because K'omoks is for the Island Comox only and Tla A'min is the usage for all the Mainland Comox groups they can exist as separate titles as there is no name that I'm aware of for both groups Comox peoples would be fine here; Comox people infers "people from Comox", see the dual RM at Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move about that geographic-name problem, which was also ignored by the usual suspect re St'at'imc/Lillooet, Tsilhqot'in/Chilcotin, Ktunaxa/Kutenai, Dakelh/Carrier, Secwepemc/Shuswap and Nlaka'pamux/Thompson, all of them closed in favour of the native name. note also the primary topic discussion at Talk:Comox#Requested move and Talk:Lillooet#Requested move (those are duals and the main discussions may be at the town articles, but they are linked from the pages given. The community has already set the precedent needed, this is being ignored persistently and obstinately and rather than engage discussion, Kwami tries in each case to shut the RM down as "disruptive".Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak, from my point of view the current location is fine. Afterall, it was the previous stable location. There are certainly strong merits to a move but I'll leave that to an actual RM to decide.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. I was worried about my reversion to the last stable version. Now, I think I can walk away from this happily. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "last stable version" still has a problem; this is not about one people; it's about at least four (if you read the K'omoks' own website, it's actually more like 7 or 8). Comox peoples should be the title; there is no native endonym for both main groups together; so "Comox" will have to do; but the singular form is incorrect, though it has been "stable". This kind of case is also why in the days of t he "old consensus" that it was felt that disambiguation by such terms could be necessarily inadequate and misleading, and because of the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Comox" in Canada as meaning the town, a disambiguation of the conventional idiom for this group of people is necessary; I myself have worked on this article and also have begun researching it in detail for expansion, and it's clear that it is NOT one people who are under discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submit and RM if you feel you can make a case. It's what should have done in the first place given such a move would never fit in the column of uncontroversial.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a redlink for that; an RM is not required, and it is not a controversial change because the topic matter is clearly about a group of peoples, as opposed to one people as the current title suggests; presupposes.Skookum1 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted an RM to resolve matter.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there can't be two RMs on the same page at the same time; and you just started one, no?Skookum1 (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move one. There is a clear consensus to move Comox people to K'omoks, on the basis of the evidence presented that that is the most WP:COMMONNAME of that topic. However, there is no consensus to move Comox to Comox (disambiguation). That proposal was recently considered at Talk:Comox#Requested_move and closed as "no consensus" only 7 days before this discussion opened. A failed proposal should not be resurrected so soon. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– A double move suggested, with a redirect. 1. Moving Comox people to K'omoks: the modern literature (anything post 2005) is clear this is the common name. Post-2005 K'omoks -wikipedia produces 75 Google book hits[1], "Comox people" -wikipedia produces 45 hits[2]. Couple that with the fact that the population refer to themselves as either K'ómoks or K'ómoks First Nation[3] and I see good reason to move that article. 2. Comox, British Columbia is clear topic lead of Comox. Based on Wikipedia hits in Feb. 2316 hits for Comox, British Columbia[4], 1309 hits for CFB Comox[5], 247 hits for Comox people[6], 487 hits for Comox language[7] and 126 hits for K'ómoks First Nation[8]. 3. Since a clear 50% plus hits in the subject area for hits going to Comox, British Columbia the redirect should go there and Comox moved to Comox (disambiguation) Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was my original move that got reverted, and the gist of Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move also. But the problem with that, as I have realized since, is that K'omoks is only for the Island group, not the Mainland group. There are two groups of peoples, quite distinct; the moreso in modern times because the K'omoks, whose very name is in Lik'wala and not in the old Comox-language form (Sahtloot), are now culturally part of another cultural/linguistic group. Sub-articles for Klahoose and Tla A'min have now been created, I haven't gotten to Homalco yet; band articles already exists; the Klahoose stub was created because of the detailed information available on German Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the secondary move request here is a non sequitur. Comox (disambiguation) is a redirect to Comox due to the result of the RM preceding the link to this one on Talk:Comox#Requested move, which is out of step with the other RMs that have seen towns be recognized as the primary topic over those of the native peoples whose names they were derived from: Chemainus, Sechelt, Esquimalt, Saanich, Sooke and more.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you suggest moving Comox, British Columbia to "the redirect" (by which I take you to mean Comox even though it's no longer a redirect, might I suggest you add a second, fresh RM on the town as well; or take it to MoveReview for relisting as it's not a week old yet.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I think this approach works just fine by me. It's a request well defended by statistics. I'm not looking to move Comox, British Columbia, just have the redirect point towards it. I think a level of natural disambiguation works best here.--Labattblueboy (talk)
      • You are claiming that this (the town) is an exception to WP:CANSTYLE#Places but other RMs demonstrate this is clearly not the case, as also with the terms of that section of MOS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, my argument is that Comox, British Columbia is the primary topic but that I recognize that maybe there is just enough ambiguity that readers would benefit from a bit of natural disambiguation. All seems to fit well with WP:CANSTYLE#Places, in the very least nothing there discourages this approach.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That has not been decided to be the case at over half a dozen parallel RMs to this one, under exactly the same circumstances; if the town is the primarytopic, as you observe, then Comox should be its title, as per WP:CSG#Places. You also haven't answered to my observation that you have the secondary RM reversed.Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the first as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Oppose the second. Given that the town is the primary topic it should be at Comox (especially if the idea is to make Comox a redirect to Comox, British Columbia), the current material at Comox should be moved to the disambiguation. This would be inline with Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification I support moving Comox, British Columbia to Comox. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, including moving Comox, British Columbia to Comox. For the reasons set out by CambridgeBayWeather. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments For reference, that primary topic dispute is - was - a core issue of the RM above, which has failed (and IMO should be relisted alongside these not-unrelated items. As one title in that RM has just been RMd already at Talk:Comox#Requested move conjointly with Comox, British Columbia, where the closer agreed with objectors as to there being doubt about PRIMARYTOPIC and refused, the moves. But isn`t that rather quick to hold another one on Comox on its heels? On the same title? That several other RMs of exactly the same kind have been closed in favour of what you both and I know is the PRIMARYTOPIC (I probably listed them in the Comox RM but have also been adding to the list of single-name places within WPCANADA, wherever it is, and the CANTALK talkpage.
Extended comments in reply to CBW and Skeezix on Canadian PRIMARYTOPICs vs global perceptions of same
The other issue related to all this is the "shadow primary topic" spoken of by opponents of the proposal in that RM, re Comox people. I left it off because K'omoks was the title I had moved it to, but in discussions in the wake of that I have observed that that is only for the Island group, not the Mainland, and separate ethnographic articles for each; and I've proposed it be named Comox peoples because more than one people (two distinct groups of several, the modern Island group now not speaking the ancient language, having adopted Kwak'wala...).....complicated stuff like all of this, but they're still not the PRIMARYTOPIC of the name as we most commonly use it in Canadian English; so that's why you will hear objections to "this is not Canadian English Wikipedia, this is English Wikipedia" to mandate that globally-known (if to us out of date and as we understand now often incorrect, some derisive) are at "global titles" vs the names for indigenous peoples which have come to be part of "us";

I am also hearing at other related RMs that Canadian PRIMARYTOPIC perceptions should not apply over global usage; in direct contradiction of CANSTYLE and CANENGLISH (I argue that lexicon is included that; some claim only punctuation and spelling); I have also been scolded for moving standalone single-name dab pages to vacant "(disambiguation)" titles without discussion in re what are PRIMARYTOPIC disputes, they claim: I took the mandate of WP:CSG#Places as an action taken after discussions on CANTALK and reading that guideline in detail, and noted Nanaimo and other places as going directly to their city-names, despite the presence of an indigenous group (formerly) known by that name, and who are the source of that name (though not as Snuneymux, which is modern coinage), and been going through, so far, only all the municipality categories and the main unincorporated settlements of BC category; the plan was to move onto Alberta and across the country; you can see where me enacting this in BC has gotten me/us/wikipedia huh?Skookum1 (talk)

Some unique places luckily had vacant moves that I could do; I won't go on about the WP:NCL "policy" which is a subtext in much of the opposition in all these "town RMs", that older native-people names are allegedly mandated by that guideline to be only about RS (and, the claim, must include "people"), meaning the full global scope of RS, which is related to the people/language PRIMARYTOPIC dispute. A "discussion" about this is on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) which relates to this underlying theme - or notion - that in a global sense the still-prevalent older names in Canada; and in several cases like this, including two other open RMs (Bella Bella and Lillooet, maybe there's a third?), the PRIMARYTOPIC dispute is subtextually but never directly as meaning the native people, rather than anything else on the disambiguation page.

I'm also going to get dressed down and scolded for writing "walls of text"...("there are none so blind as those who will not see"). Yet these are all points of information re the preceding and related RMs and descriptions of the issues already at play in the previous RM and in many others. I know you guys (CBW, Skeezix) know that my points are cogent and informed; those that through TLDR would learn something if they tried. The logic in what I say, for those that bother/dare to read it, is on point and addresses the issues here and in countless other RMs open and closed. On the PRIMARYISSUE.~~

The nature of Canadian PRIMARYTOPIC vs global PRIMARYTOPIC is the central element here in all cases of these interconnected disputes. You and I know that Comox and other nominations are references to the town in Canada, 95% of the time, and that there are lots of articles with the same archaic-indigenous name situation, some of which were already done long ago (Coquitlam, Nanaimo, Kamloops and others before the current batch of town RMs. These precedents are being ignored, our references to Canadian standards and Wikipedia guidelines being dismissed or disputed, and needless energy spent on what, if not just our own guidelines but all wikipedia guidelines really were at play, instead of PRIMARYTOPIC disputes with nationals of the country the places are in as to what normal, common usage should be in Wikipedia. Apparently not ours.Skookum1 (talk)

To us, Comox is an open-and-shut case like many others out there, old and new; to them such moves are being treated as the enemy, with PRIMARYTOPIC being code for the disputes on correct names for native group/ethnography articles. About that I won't go on, but it was necessary to clarify the context and underlying meaning of the PRIMARYTOPIC disputes on what we know are common usage; other-RM issues re the native names (and their languages) are also at play. Once these are all moved appropriately and correctly, we really need to salt them or enshrine them in a subpage of CANSTYLE for lexicon re toponyms, indigenous terminology, and more.Skookum1 (talk)

I will be condemned by others for speaking at length; others for what I am saying, indicating that my opponents do read the things I say, but they use the necessary length (complex issues and intertwined guidelines cannot be discussed in briefer terms suitable for pointillistic, mono-topical/mono-guideline driven points; nor can cases like this be solved without including all three related topics; four if you want to throw in the base, which due to military populations may be the most well-known use.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

culture[edit]

The K'omoks culture resource at this webpage. --Kmoksy (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kʼómoks/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs culture/history and linguistics input; currently "shared" with Comox people article; needs separate language article (Ko'mox). Skookum1 - 6 May 06

Last edited at 15:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Comox people/temp" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Comox people/temp. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Comox people/temp until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Comox people (temp)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Comox people (temp) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Comox people (temp) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kʼómoks&oldid=1203432534"